|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 349 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What would a transitional fossil look like? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Your post ...
You get a lot of "half-smart" evolutionists online. ...
Weren't you the one complaining about ad hominem arguments somewhere above?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
Floods. Plural. We have floods going on in the world right now, so we know they are plural. We have eyewitness accounts going back as far as humans have had the means to pass information down from one generation to the next, so we know floods are plural. We have no reason to think there haven't been floods every year as long as there has been water on earth and as long as there have been seasons. Anyone with eyes open should be able to see the evidence for the Flood everywhere on this earth. What we do NOT have is one shred of evidence that there was one big worldwide Flood. And we do have evidence that there was not.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1025 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined:
|
As usual Mike, the information about fossils used to support your arguments is woefully incorrect. I'm guessing it's things you've either misremembered or misunderstood; or it's some nonsense you've taken for granted from a creationist source.
Basically the same things unchanged, that turn up no matter how far back you go, and some are even specialised examples such as the funnel-nose ray or the giant salamander or the platypus. Giant salamanders do not go back 'as far as you go'. They're known from the Jurassic onwards (about 160 million years). Prior to this - there are no salamanders in the fossil record. Platypuses don't go back very far at all - the oldest known fossils are about 60 million years old. And the fossil record is very poor - it consists of one partial skull, a few fragments, and teeth. It's hard to quantify how much they've changed based on such scanty materials. The modern and ancient platypus skulls differ in quite a few features, however (below). Significantly, modern platypus don't have teeth. ABE - for some reason the platypus skull pictures don't embed properly. This is the fossil skull. These are modern. I'm not sure what a funnel nose ray is - this doesn't seem to be a particularly common name for type of ray, so it's hard to know what you're being wrong about here.
Do we find any ancestors for the cambrian phyla? They're conspicuously absent. What about angiosperms? Conspicuously absent. What about dinosaurs? Conspicuously absent. I don't know a great deal about plants, but to say that dinosaur ancestors are 'conspicuously absent' is just bizarre. There are plenty. Here's one (the below is of course a model, but I selected Marasuchus because it's a remarkably complete fossil - most of the model below is based on actual fossil bones; not speculative reconstruction).
Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The depth of the strata proves one worldwide Flood without any other evidence being taken into account.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
It's apparent neither you nor your reference's author know what a nested hierarchy is. A cladogram is not one, and does not show the relationships embodied in a nested hierarchy.
A nested hierarchy can be defined as a grouping in which all subsets are completely contained within "parent" sets. Many creationists have tried to make a nested hierarchy of vehicles of various sorts. All have failed. Once you try to jam vehicles into a nested hierarchy of any noticeable size, you quickly find examples that don't fit. That's because vehicles (and pretty much any group of man-made objects) transfer features between groups constantly. Somebody invents a hydraulic disk brake on one model of car. Soon they're on trucks and all sorts of wheeled vehicles. Now they're on my son's high-end bicycle (and they're infinitely better than rim brakes). For example, Michael Denton in his first book:
See the problem? Can you fix it? Could you then show where the V-22 Osprey, a Diesel submarine, and an AAV-P7/A1 Assault Amphibious Vehicle would fit?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
On the contrary, it's the multiple layers (strata) that clearly show that they could not have all been deposited at once. The depth of the strata proves one worldwide Flood without any other evidence being taken into account.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
Edge writes: Have you not repeatedly denied the presence of transitional fossils?Okay, I will amend my statement to reflect that YECs, in general, have continually denied transitional fossils. Your erroneous complaint of the logical fallacy of ad hominem argument is moot. I don't see how, isn't it you saying I don't understand this and that? In EvC debates don't you think it's predictable for evolutionists to always fall back on the, "you just don't understand the science", type argument? From my perspective have you any idea how tedious that is for someone with a high IQ and more knowledge than most evolutionists likely have? (I can show you my test scores if you wish)
Edge writes: I get the feeling that you confuse philosophy with science.You state that while it is logically possible to classify something as transitional, it is not logical to project from the specific to the general. The problem you have is that this is philosophy, not science. Inductive science is still science and a logical fallacy is not necessarily fallacious. No I think I have it right because that's just the way it is in life, sometimes there are types of evidence we expect that are consistent with many proposals. With the handful of "transitionals" they proclaim as proving evolution, the portion is simply tiny. Also you have to basically INVOKE as part of the argument, that all those millions of transitionals existed, yet we can explain the small amount of them without evolution rather easily.
Edge writes: But we wouldn't expect the same evidence 'without evolution'.And no, evidence does not 'work as proof'. Proof is a judgement (IMO) and evidence either supports a premise (proof), or not (refutation), or it is equivocal. You seem to suggest that the evidence is equivocal and therefore does not support the presence of transitional fossils. I contend that the mass of evidence (much of which you ignore) is 'proven' to the reasonable person. If only from the standpoint that you have no complete alternative to the evolutionary explanation, my opinion is that your argument is invalid. Yeah but you're wrong IMHO. It is slothful induction fallacy to pretend that a tiny percentage is proven "to the reasonable person". I am a reasonable person, I score 95% on university level logic tests, and close to 90% on all critical thinking evaluation tests. So my reason tells me you appeal to "reasonable" people so as to lump me into the "unreasonable" category, which is a false logical disjunction called a limited choice fallacy, where all the evolutionists get to be smart, informed, reasonable people and anyone who disagrees with you is not in that group. The truth of the matter is that the transitionals argument is the same as the "bad design" argument, it is slothful induction, because if we put all the transitionals of evolution in a museum, and then we created waxworks of all the missing ones, we would need perhaps five museums to be filled with waxworks but perhaps only one tenth of one museum's area for the transitionals. My last estimate based on what an evolutionist argued was that about 250 thousand fossils have been found, of which about 0.8% they call "transitionals". Some if you look at the wiki-list, are appalling examples, they really don't even qualify as transitions, the closest thing to an Ichthyosaur was some sort of four legged lizard like thing, that basically you could tell they just picked to represent it. LOl. it's the same with the bad design argument, for any feature the evolutionist picks, eyes, pharynx, whatever, just ask for their one complaing, just how many viable designs there are that do good jobs pertaining to that system. You will get something like 200 miraculously wonderful intelligent designs compared to perhaps one or two superficial evolution-arguments of "bad design" which most of the time aren't even bad design.
Edge writes: That's silly. Any time we provide a transitional species, you would find just another two gaps. The problem is one of connecting dots through long periods of time, not a set number of frames per second. As such, you are once again, confusing evidence with proof. We cannot provide you with absolute proof, only myriad evidence. A reasonable person would attempt to explain that data and all of it. There he goes again with "a reasonable person". What goal must I score through to count as a "reasonable person". I say that it's simply that my standard of reason is a higher standard of critical thinking. My test scores agree. Shouldn't a reasonable person accept what objective test scores say about my intellect? The difference is I know what I am talking about. When I say the transitionals are missing, the percentage is real, because it doesn't matter what type of organism you name, you highly likely won't have transitions for it. The cambrian phyla all came out of nowhere, it seems to me a "reasonable" person would just admit that there is practically nothing for the cambrian phyla. Or are you saying you have intermediates for trilobites, and one of the most sophisticated eyes ever created (in some) What about all the other strange forms? It's okay to be honest and admit they are not there because they simply aren't friend. I am not lying, this is common knowledge. So do I qualify as "reasonable". Let's be honest again - you would only qualify a "reasonable" person as someone that accepts evolution. But you're wrong on that too, as a claim the theory of evolution is a FANTASTIC claim, and as such a fantastic claim according to a correct logical axiom, "must also have fantastic evidence". but the evidence for evolution is inflated. You guys use a rhetorical device called, "playing it up." You PLAY UP circumstantial evidence but a claim that miraculous life created itself, and beas, cheese, fleas, trees and the chinese then ensued, is basically a miracle without a miracle worker. So you are in fact highly unreasonable to expect me to think evolution is a better explanation given the very obvious signs of a much, much greater intelligent designer in life, than anything we could create;Biomimeticsengineers copying the Creator - Media Center - creation.com Question: how reasonable must I be? It seems to me you qualify a "reasonable" person as those that agree with your worldview, BUT ACTUAL REASON, shows that worldview is shot full of holes. These fallacies I mention, I do not invent them. These mistakes I argue, they are real mistakes that REASON has informed me of, as I figured it out myself. Here is my blog about slothful induction, you should read how reasonable it is;Creation and evolution views: Evolutionists Argue Bad Design In Life Because They Commit Slothful Induction Fallacy If you still think "mike, you're not reasonable you don't have any logic." Okay, here's a logic game, as you can see I am in 1st place "mike the wiz", and it's been played pretty much 50 thousand times. If I couldn't use logic and reason would I be in first place? (that's an example of reductio ad absurdum). Zoobiedoku - MindGames.com ("Ridis "was a hacker as you can see by his absurdly false score.) I don't know what else I can do to convince you that this creationist is indeed a high reasoner. Want my test scores for university level critical thinking and my scores for population genetics? I mean what do I have to do to convince an evolutionist I am a reasonable person? We all know the question is rhetorical because we all know the answer; become an evolutionist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1025 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined:
|
That doesn't follow. It is possible for the same pattern to evolve from different sources. Note the seal's flipper and the penguin's flipper, very similar in form and function, yet the seal is more closely related to other mammals and the penguin is more closely related to other birds. The evolution does not depend on birds and mammals having a common ancestor. I think you're misunderstanding Mike's point here. He's not saying whales and ichthyosaurs should have evolved from the same land ancestor if they both evolved flippers. He's pointing out that ichthyosaurs have extremely weird, derived phalanges that do not have the same immediately obvious homology with those of land animals that you see in cetaceans. Fortunately, we have early (dare I say, transitional) ichthyosaur fossils such as the below Chaohusaurus from the early Triassic of China whose phalanges still look like finger bones.
Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
mike the wiz writes:
Q: How do you eat an elephant? I don't know what else I can do to convince you that this creationist is indeed a high reasoner.A: One bite at a time. How do you convince people that your a "high reasoner"? Try setting your sights a little lower. Convince us that you can reason at all before you try to "reason" away centuries of science.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
JonF writes: It's apparent neither you nor your reference's author know what a nested hierarchy is. A cladogram is not one, and does not show the relationships embodied in a nested hierarchy.A nested hierarchy can be defined as a grouping in which all subsets are completely contained within "parent" sets. Many creationists have tried to make a nested hierarchy of vehicles of various sorts. All have failed. Once you try to jam vehicles into a nested hierarchy of any noticeable size, you quickly find examples that don't fit. That's because vehicles (and pretty much any group of man-made objects) transfer features between groups constantly. Somebody invents a hydraulic disk brake on one model of car. Soon they're on trucks and all sorts of wheeled vehicles. Now they're on my son's high-end bicycle (and they're infinitely better than rim brakes). It's amusing when people say, "you don't understand this" then state some simple things I do understand. Kind of like if I said, "you don't understand maths, if you X the radius by two you get the diameter." If I write that simple thing out, does that prove you did not know that? Because if you think it does, I seriously have worries about your mental health. I do understand a nested hierarchy but you are wrong that they always fit with evolution.
JonF writes: See the problem? Can you fix it? Could you then show where the V-22 Osprey, a Diesel submarine, and an AAV-P7/A1 Assault Amphibious Vehicle would fit? Can you show where these homoplasies would fit? Just saying "no creationist can ever score a goal I say he can't" is a bare assertion nonsense JonF, didn't you learn that in logic 101? I mean do you expect me to expect you to ever admit to anything a creationist says? LOL!https://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/595... JonF writes: It's apparent neither you nor your reference's author know what a nested hierarchy is. A cladogram is not one, and does not show the relationships embodied in a nested hierarchy.A nested hierarchy can be defined as a grouping in which all subsets are completely contained within "parent" sets. Please quote where I said this. This is a strawman fallacy. I see a nested hierarchy as a clade within a clade. I have no trouble understanding the concept simply because you explain it out loud. "The groups are called clades; each clade consists of an ancestor and all of its descendants. The relationships between clades are shown in a branching hierarchical tree called a cladogram. ... Nested clades within a larger clade in a phylogenetic tree." So it's true I am no expert in these things of course but it seems to me clades within clades can be said to be nested. As you can see from the link "Bonedigger" shows all of the technical reasons why these hierarchies don't favour evolution as they tell us. I think a focus on nested hierarchies is a subtle attempt to not have to talk about what I was talking about; the missing transitionals. For these hierarchies do not include the missing transitionals. They should be found, reasonably, they aren't. Cladograms can be created from designed things whether you like it or not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
Lack of self awareness or Christian entitlement?
mikey writes:
"half-smart" evolutionistsmikey writes: That's because most of them are simply loud mouths mikey writes: the first person to get the insults out is the first person that has lost the debate. I guess you lost. Oh and yes you do bully and harass on evolutionfairytales.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
Caffeine writes: Fortunately, we have early (dare I say, transitional) ichthyosaur fossils such as the below Chaohusaurus from the early Triassic of China whose phalanges still look like finger bones. See, that's good logic. I can't believe it a coincidence that the one who understood what I meant also produced a good logic. That earlier, more, "hand-like" set-up could of course be argued to precede the more paddle-like one. But as with many organisms, there is also the possibility that micro evolution acted the other way where selection pressure might favour a more robust rather than gracile, arrangement. Technically the strange phalange could have been the first design, or vice-versa. I admit it might be the type of transitional you might expect but when we "zoom out", we still only really see Ichthyosaurs, and no real ancestors for more sophisticated changes of anatomy. How is it that when it comes to the real stuff, the real meat on the bone, evolution is never there? Because to change a quadruped lizard like reptile thingymajig into an Ichthyosaur depends on a lot more than a slightly differently shaped fin. It is not UNIMAGINABLE that we are simply seeing a variety of Ichthyosaurs, especially when there would be nothing for the dorsal fin to be exapted from. (exaptation). Gould said something about that but apparently creationists aren't allowed to quote evolutionists. Lol
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
No Theodoric I was not the first person to get the insults out, I was responding to Faith's comments after all the insults from evolutionists were already in.
There are loud mouthed evolutionists that aren't as smart as they think but suffer Dunning-Krueger effect, so since I did not pick on anyone as such as this was a true generalisation, I think it's fair game considering all of the attacks on Faith and me that you seem to somehow COMPLETELY and CONVENIENTLY ignore.
Theodoric writes: I guess you lost. Oh and yes you do bully and harass on evolutionfairytales. I guess you can't read. It was AZPaul that started with the sarcasm and all the others with their statements about creationists that I RESPONDED to, by giving my opinion. And I don't see how I bully or harass. I think that is a bizarre statement. Have you anything more than a bare assertion for us that I do such a thing? Judging from the opinions you have formed about me and have not realised all the much worse things from some evolutionists here, I predict your examples will also be misconstrued. Just admit it, I annoy you, and that's why you are saying these things, because I am a creationist that has answers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
mike the wiz writes: We do do we? We consistently ignore this right? Oh well what is this link then, it must be a figment of my imagination, when I see a hierarchy for how the unicycle evolved; https://creation.com/...erarchies-and-chimeras-do-they-exist There are multiple violations of your proposed hierarchy. For example, there are models of light trucks and cars that share the same engine while two cars from the same model have different engines. Automobiles do not fit into a nested hierarchy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
There are multiple violations of your proposed hierarchy. For example, there are models of light trucks and cars that share the same engine while two cars from the same model have different engines. Automobiles do not fit into a nested hierarchy. Then there are SUVs that combine truck frame and engine (and so evade car engine emissions restrictions) with car cabs ... Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024